Eye-witness observations and experiences
Well, it’s complicated
Complexity is exponential. In organisations, complexity tends to multiply rapidly; as you add more components, services, customers, and resources, the possible interactions shoot up, making things harder to manage and comprehend. Without proper management, this complexity can quickly spiral into chaos, especially when business continuity pressures leave little room to pause, reassess and re-set.
Our client – a global FMCG company – had accumulated thousands of near-identical suppliers throughout Europe, all competing for similar contracts across brands, categories, and locations. In one unusual case, two colleagues sitting opposite each other purchased identical items from the same supplier – but at four different prices! Meanwhile, another team member bought a nearly identical product (in much larger quantities) from a different supplier at a higher cost, simply because it used a slightly better material recommended by the manufacturer.
When we reviewed data from their accounting systems, we found that, for a small category of generic Point of Sale items, the company had almost 2,500 unique product specifications. We managed to consolidate these down to under 75 specifications – a reduction of 97% - with no negative impact on business continuity or retailer satisfaction. In fact, sales increased as marketing campaigns could be launched within weeks instead of months, allowing quicker reactions than competitors. The client also banked a 20% drop in product costs, significant reductions in artwork expenses, and measurable gains in sustainability metrics.
In short: this example illustrates how unchecked complexity can hinder efficiency and inflate costs. By consolidating specifications and streamlining processes, organisations can achieve improved agility, cost savings, and sustainability, demonstrating the value of thoughtful simplification in business operations.
The True Cost of Marketing
Millions of times each day, shoppers pick up everyday products without considering the intricate journey those items have taken to reach the shelves. Take a simple bottle of shampoo, for example: its path from raw ingredients to manufacturing, then on to a co-packer (a company that assembles and packages products for brands), through distribution networks, and finally to the retail shop floor, is incredibly complex. Yet this item might be sold for €3.99 as part of a buy-two-get-one-free promotion, and every participant in the supply chain still manages to turn a profit.
The marketing effort that persuades shoppers to choose a particular product is equally intricate. Brand Marketing, Manufacturing, Sales, Operations, Distribution, Merchandising, and Retail all must work together seamlessly to ensure the right product is available in the right place at the right time. If this end-to-end process isn’t logical, streamlined, and efficient, the risk is significant.
Simple theory
Different reality
With years of experience in brand marketing alongside seasoned professionals from agencies, clients, retailers, manufacturing, and operations, I’ve repeatedly witnessed the chaos that can arise in complicated marketing supply chains. When these chains break down, brand owners see weakened sales and shrinking margins - often due to higher operating costs, wasted overproduction, and poor compliance once products reach retail stores.
How is it that a simple display unit initially negotiated by Procurement at €38.00, after months of haggling with a print supplier for a 10% material saving, ends up costing over €90 by the time it’s assembled, packed, delivered, and merchandised in store? This type of oversight is not unique - many brands face similar hidden costs due to fragmented supply chain management, resulting in industry-wide margin erosion.
Why?
Because no one was looking
No one was responsible for assessing how each decision impacted other parts of the process. Seemingly logical choices made in brand operations or marketing procurement can cripple efficiency further down the line as products get closer to their retail destination.
In this real example, no one realized that three rounds of design changes - meant to gain brand and retailer approval - resulted in a display unit 40mm too wide to fit two per pallet. Trying to cut costs by having the manufacturer redesign the unit also weakened it, making it impossible to stack when it was filled, so instead of fitting four units per pallet footprint, only one could fit - instantly quadrupling handling and distribution costs.
Because more pallets needed unloading, the retailer’s loading bay was blocked for six hours instead of one, leading to a potential retailer chargeback (a fee retailers charge brands to cover unexpected or excessive costs associated with handling products).
The net result?
A reported €3,800 saving on 1,000 display units triggered an additional €41,000 in operational costs down the line and led to the final project cost increasing by nearly 70%, from €54,000 to €91,000.
That’s the Total Cost of Ownership.
Over the years, I’ve seen similar scenarios play out with promotional packaging, seasonal displays, and even new product launches, where teams focus on isolated savings but overlook the ripple effect on logistics and retail execution. The lesson for brands and marketers is clear: to avoid costly surprises, always assess the full impact of every decision across the supply chain. Total Cost of Ownership isn’t just a theory - it’s an everyday reality in our industry.
Maximum Team Effort
A few years ago, we secured a single-source contract with a global FMCG company, managing €15 million in European marketing and point-of-sale spending. This was their first outsourcing experience; previously, each country had operated autonomously by choice. However, the central leadership recognized that competitors who unified their retail marketing enjoyed greater agility and cost savings.
Our involvement initially caused some resistance. In early meetings, several client stakeholders insisted that we were disrupting a tried-and-tested process, claiming there was no room for improvement as their teams already worked at full capacity. They repeatedly emphasised how busy they were - too busy, in fact, for us.
Despite these objections, we methodically mapped out their end-to-end purchasing process. When we shared this process flow, the client was surprised - it was their first time seeing every step laid out clearly. They hadn’t realised how complex, repetitive, and sometimes inefficient their operations were: at least 25 actions involved multiple departments and stakeholders, all under pressure from tight deadlines and frequent bottlenecks. No wonder they felt overwhelmed!
Re-engineering their end-to-end process cut touchpoints by 75% and reduced campaign lead times by about 25%, allowing greater focus on productive marketing - a true win-win!
Blurred Vision
We often tell potential clients that tracking both activities and spending is essential for achieving efficiency. In simple terms, you can only manage what you can see - or put differently, lacking visibility means lacking full control.
Consider this example: a global brand evaluated critical marketing decisions by monitoring the complete costs spread across several operational departments, internal teams, and multiple suppliers (including core product, packaging, point-of-sale materials, co-packing, and logistics). They then used a formula to determine if the expected profit margin justified moving forward with a campaign.
This approach to ROI validation is common and usually effective. If the expenses are too high, organisations try to renegotiate price, redesign the display or adapt the product load up; if they still can't hit the target profit, they must decide subjectively whether to proceed, perhaps to gain market share, strengthen retailer relationships, or keep competitors at bay.
Simple, right? Or maybe not.
After streamlining their supply chain for a unified view of all operations, it emerged that nearly 30% of the company’s materials expenditure had gone unseen (including machinery set up costs, tooling, cliches, delivery costs) and were funded through a cost centre controlled by a totally different department. Years of routine spending were captured in a profit and loss statement unknown to any marketing stakeholder and had been omitted from “profit after cost” calculations. This oversight lasted for years, across multiple brands and territories, resulting in millions in unrecognised expenditure.
As highlighted earlier, visibility into actions and spending truly is vital for driving efficiency.
We can help with that!
Out of sight, out of mind
Our client, a major telecoms company, faced challenges with a fragmented supply chain that slowed down their UK retail store refreshes in a fast-paced market where competitor offers changed every week. Their external POSM print manager sourced promotional materials and sent them to a warehousing provider that also handled mobile phone and SIM distribution.
This caused problems: monthly refreshes took over four weeks for design and production, plus another two weeks for the warehouse’s kitting and collation activity. As a result, the client operated on an eight-week cycle despite weekly changes in the industry. Store managers improvised by using handwritten signs on easels to advertise new deals; one memorable example was a fluorescent yellow star taped to a £1,200 Sony Vaio laptop with “As used by James Bond” hastily scribbled in pen.
Once the client confirmed the contract, our implementation plan included taking over collateral sourcing, creating a tailored store profile program to deliver the right products in the right quantities, developing a standardised catalogue, and moving existing POS stock to our own fulfilment centre.
That’s when we discovered the full situation.
During my initial visit to the current warehouse, I met the 18-person team managing the client’s POS activities who, under TUPE law, would transfer to us. The team’s costs were billed as a flat monthly fee, without details on responsibilities or performance tracking.
This seemed excessive - especially since, in a previous role, I managed kitting and collation for over 14,000 UK Post Office locations with just four staff and consistently exceeded strict KPIs for same day despatch.
We set out to understand how this sizable team spent their time, since we’d become responsible for their employment. Without going into too much detail, the client had overlooked significant spending, and the supplier had taken advantage. After tough negotiations, we secured a £900,000 refund for “long-term inefficient management costs,” which pleased the client (and embarrassed them somewhat). Only three employees ended up transferring, and they proved to be excellent assets.
Then we examined the stockholding.
The client said about 400 pallets of POSM inventory needed integration for any new supplier. Sure enough, there were 400 pallets, each incurring storage fees totalling roughly £100K annually. Client marketing staff focused on live campaigns, leaving stock management low on their agenda. Upon review, we found most items were obsolete: dusty Millenium 2000 desk planners (in late 2012), leftover collateral for discontinued phones, old sports and seasonal campaign materials - the list goes on.
Ultimately, less than 50 pallets were actually useful for future retail use. 88% of the inventory was obsolete, costing the client around £90,000 a year in storage fees.
Out of sight, out of mind. Indeed.
This programme delivered remarkable outcomes for the client, which continue into 2026:
· 75% reduction in lead time from brief to delivery (from 8 to 2 weeks)
· 70% reduction in operational staffing costs
· store specific POSM distribution reduced production volumes by c20%
· elimination of obsolete stock through bi-monthly purges
· £900K rebate from the logistics partner (a bonus win!)